The court upheld the rejection of compassionate allowance and invalid pension claims, citing failure to comply with rejoining duties and absence justification.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Professor (Dairy Science) of Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayinikkara, Thrissur, seeks to quash Exts.P8 and P17 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for grant of compassionate allowance as provided under Rule 5 Part III KSR with effect from 01.03.2015.

2. The petitioner states that she worked as Assistant Professor (Dairy Science) since 02.12.1988. She was due to retire on 13.01.2025. In the year 2000, the petitioner was afflicted with the mental illness Schizophrenia.

The illness affected the duties assigned to the petitioner. Her family advised her to join her spouse abroad for better treatment. The petitioner therefore went to United Kingdom.

3. Leave Without Allowance (LWA) was granted to the petitioner for the period from 01.03.2005 to 28.02.2015. The petitioner sought extension of leave for a further period from 01.03.2015. The 2^nd respondent, as per Ext.P2 communication dated 17.05.2019, rejected the request of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to rejoin duty. The petitioner was suffering from Schizophrenia even at that time. The petitioner therefore applied for retirement from service. The application was, however, rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P3.

4. The 2^nd respondent surprisingly issued Ext.P4 memo of charges and statement of allegations. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply seeking to consider the request for voluntary retirement on health grounds with invalid pensionary benefits. The 2^nd respondent, however, constituted an enquiry committee. The enquiry committee conducted a Zoom meeting with the petitioner on 15.03.2022. The committee submitted Ext.P7 report recommending to consider the request of the petitioner for invalid pension on health grounds. The committee, however, reported to continue disciplinary action against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent, without considering the request for invalid pension, arbitrarily removed the petitioner from service with effect from 28.02.2015, as per Ext.P8 order. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation to the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent turned down the request of the petitioner for invalid pension as per Ext.P9 dated 19.04.2023. The petitioner thereafter sent Ext.P10 representation to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rejected Ext.P10 by Ext.P11 order dated 28.11.2023. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.6729/2024. This Court directed the 2^nd respondent, as per Ext.P14 judgment dated 28.05.2024, to consider the claim of the petitioner for invalid pension. The 2^nd respondent did not entertain the claim of the petitioner and passed Ext.P17 order dated 23.09.2024.

6. The petitioner states that Exts.P8 and P17 orders are illegal and unsustainable. The 2^nd respondent, before terminating the service of the petitioner, ought to have considered the recommendations of the enquiry committee for sanction of invalid pension an should have directed the petitioner to undergo medical examination for ascertaining mental incapacity for sanction of invalid pension under Rule 42 Part III KSR. Even if the removal of the petitioner from service is acceptable, the 2^nd respondent ought to have granted compassionate allowance to the petitioner under Rule 5 Part III KSR without waiting for a formal application from the petitioner.

7. Respondents 2 and 3 opposed the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner requested for extension of LWA on 11.03.20